Ramblings of a Jackhole

Did anyone run the numbers on Cash For Clunkers?

An average Cash for Clunkers vehicle received 15 mpg. At 12,000 miles per year that’s 800 gallons a year of gasoline.

An average replacement vehicle receives 25 mpg. At12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

Therefore, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year per clunker.

The President and Congress tells us that 700,000 “clunkers” were taken off of the road under this program. So that’s a TOTAL savings of 224 million gallons / year.  Wow.  224 million.  BIG NUMBER.

Now, on average, a barrel of oil can be refined down to 19.5 gallons of gasoline. That equates to a bit over 11.5 million barrels of oil. Wow, yet another BIG number?

Well, the annual oil consumption in the US is about 7.5 BILLION barrels of oil. So “Cash for Clunkers” will decrease our annual oil usage by 0.16%, our about half a day of the total US oil consumption every year.

Still, we all must care about foreign dependency and even this savings should be desirable right?

Sure, but at what cost? Let us see.

From the buyers perspective, the current nationwide average price for a gallon of gas is just under $2.50. That means the average clunker owners will save $800 a year in gas costs.  The National Automobile Dealers Association tells us the average cost of a new car is $28,400.  J.D. Power tells us that the average auto loan is for 64 months (five years, four months).  Bankrate.com shows the average interest rate to be over 8%.  That means the average clunker buyer will be spending over $6500 in interest for their loan (over $1300 a year).  The AAA estimates the average depreciation of a vehicle around $3400 a year, or $17,000 in five years.  That means that after five years the average “cash for clunkers” buyer spent over $23,500 to save $4000, for a loss of $18,500. Even if gas goes to $5.00 a gallon they will have lost over $15,000 in five years. And we’re encouraging our citizens to do this?  Why would we even think about it?  Won’t this just make them MORE dependent on government hand outs?  Would the President and Congress ever really WANT that?  Hmmmm….

Well, the President and Congress thought it was a good idea to spend $3 billion to decrease the annual need of 11.5 million barrels of oil, which costs $775 million at today’s rates.  One might argue at we’ll “break even” after five years, but that is ignoring the fact that even without cash for clunkers US consumers will eventually trade in their cars for more efficient ones.  All the “Cash for Clunkers” program did was to speed this process up by a year or two at the most.  Even if this sped up the trade-in rates by TWO years, the $3 BILLION would prevent the buying of less than $1.5 BILLION over the two years.  And that isn’t money that the government would have spent, but oil companies.

How is investing in a program that encourages citizens to go into debt and come out behind a good idea?  How is spending $3 billion on reducing consumption by less the 1/700th of our use a good idea?

And they wonder why we don’t trust them with our health care spending…

I miss Ronald Reagan.

Democrats, realizing the big success of the President’s “Cash For Clunkers” rebate program, have revamped a major portion of the Obama Nationalization of the Health Care Plan.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reid are expected to make this major announcement at a joint news conference next week. I, the Jackhole, with my wide resources have obtained an advanced copy of the proposal which is named….

“CASH FOR CODGERS” and it works like this… Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to turn in one old person on the day of delivery. The amount the government grants them will be fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more prescription dependent codgers will garner the highest amounts.

Special “Bonuses” will be paid for those submitting codgers in targeted groups, such as smokers, alcohol drinkers, persons 10 pounds over their government prescribed weight, – and any member of the Republican Party.

Smaller bonuses will be given for codgers who consume beef, soda, fried foods, potato chips, lattes, whole milk, dairy products, bacon, Brussel sprouts, cheese, or Girl Scout Cookies.

All codgers will be rendered totally useless via a toxic injection, – similar to that given to the engines of the ‘clunker’ trade ins. This will insure that they like the vehicle ‘clunkers’ are not secretly resold (traded in) or their body parts harvested to keep other codgers in repair and among society.

Judging by this I should be gone soon. I’ll miss you guys…

The Dept Of Defense briefed the president this morning, they told President Obama that 2 Brazilian soldiers were lost in Iraq. To everyone’s surprise, all the color drained from Obama’s face.
Then he collapsed onto his desk, head in his hands,  visibly shaken, almost in tears. Finally, he composed himself and asked, ‘Just how much is a brazilian?’

This shouldn’t surprise us as he clearly has no understanding of how much a trillion is either.

I’m not sure if I buy what they are saying, but it is interesting.

I guess the “Bilderberg Group” = “The Illuminate” = “Trilateral Commission” according to the video.  I have to admit that I think they hate Obama as much as they hated Bush.

It’s a very long video (nearly TWO hours) by Alex Jones, a talk show host, on how this Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission is setting up a “One World Order.” Reminds me a bit of what Mel Gibson’s character Jerry Fletcher would make in the movie “Conspiracy Theory”.

Of course Jerry turned out to be right about at least ONE thing…

You know one when you see one!
January 21, 2009
Outgoing President George W. Bush quietly boarded his helicopter and left for Texas , commenting only: “Today is not about me.  Today is a historical day for our nation and people.”

January 21, 2001:
Outgoing President Bill Clinton scheduled two separate radio addresses to the nation, and organized a public farewell speech/rally in downtown Washington D.C. scheduled to directly conflict with incoming President Bush’s inauguration ceremony.

January 21, 2009
President Bush left office without issuing a single Presidential pardon, only granting a commutation of sentence to two former border patrol agents convicted of shooting a convicted drug smuggler.  He did not grant any type of clemency to Scooter Libby or any other former political aide, ally, or business partner.

January 21, 2001:
President Clinton issued 140 pardons and several commutations of  sentence on his final day in office.  Included in these were: billionaire financier, convicted tax evader, and leading Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich; Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal; Congressional Post Office Scandal figure and former Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski; convicted bank fraud, sexual assault and child porn perpetrator and former Democratic Congressman Melvin Reynolds; and convicted drug felon Roger Clinton, the President’s half-brother.

January 21, 2009
The Bush daughters left gift baskets in the White House bedrooms for the Obama daughters, containing flowers, candy, stuffed animals, DVD’s and CD’s, and heartfelt notes of encouragement and advice for the young girls on how to prepare for their new lives in the White House.

January 21, 2001:
Clinton and Gore staffers ripped computer wires and electrical outlets from the White House walls, stuffed piles of notebook papers into the White House toilets, systematically removed the letter “W” from every computer key pad in the entire White House, and damaged several thousand dollars worth of furniture in the White House master bedroom.

Headlines in 2001:
“Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees”
“Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times”
“Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft”

Headlines in 2009:
“Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million”
“Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party”
“Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate”
“Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration”

Dear Mr. Obama,

In a speech you said the following:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Mr. Obama, what exactly does a civilian national security force that receives $1 trillion in tax payer dollars a year do?  Is it true that you’re planning on naming it the Security Squadron force?  Mr. Obama, would your SS force be armed, so they’d be called the Armed SS Force? Mr. Obama, maybe calling the “Waffen” SS would make it easier for it to be accepted by those in certain countries overseas? Mr. Obama, what would one have to do to become part of your SS force, would you require strong personal commitments to certain ideologies and would ones racial heritage be a factor in membership? Mr. Obama, will your SS force monitor what’s going on inside our nation and in our military? Mr. Obama, have you picked out any cool logos for your SS force? If not, maybe some lightening strike will help with that.

Dear Mr. Obama,

How can you support Raila Odinga who is promoting violence in Kenya after losing a legal election.    You know Mr. Odinga as your cousin. He is promoting nationwide violence after losing a legal election.  Kenya was a stable nation until after Odinga lost.  Now Christians are being hunted down and killed, their churches burnt to the ground.  Odinga became popular following promising to distribute the country’s wealth “more equally.”  Odinga was endorsed by Kenya’s Muslim minority after signing an agreement with the National Muslim Leaders Forum, a radical Islamic group, in 2007 where Odinga agreed to institute Islamic law in Kenya and to end cooperation with US’s war on terrorism. 

Mr. Obama, why did you campaig for Odinga in 2006 while a member of the US Senate and as recently as Dec. 2007. Mr. Obama, would you try to do the same thing if you lose the election?

The following is a condensation of a series from the Investor’s Business Daily explaining “What Caused the Loan Crisis”:

1977:  Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law.  The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify.
The Premise:  Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.

Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.

How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

Answer: Bill Clinton wanted it that way.

1992:  Republican representative Jim Leach (IA) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stock-holding few.

1993:  Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies.  This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994:  Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened  the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995:  Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin’s Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules.  Robt. Rubin’s Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating.  The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks.  Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.

1997 – 1999:  Clinton , bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way.  Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs. 10% for banks.  Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often “no doc”, “no income”, requiring no money down and no verification of income.   Worse still was the cronyism:  Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats.  384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie.  Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities.  During the 1990’s Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as musch as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work?  Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority home-ownership rates are shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie’s excesses.  Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.  ”We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks,” Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000:   Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the “special status”.  Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO’s who knew how to reward and punish.  ”We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation’s housing and mortgage markets” Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said.  It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001:   Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen.Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003:  Bush proposes what the NY Times called “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago”.  Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.

2005:  Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress:  ”We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk”.  Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, “If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole”.  Sen. Harry Reid accused the GOP ;of trying to “cripple the ability of Fannie and Freddie to carry out their mission of expanding home-ownership”  The bill went nowhere.

2007:  By now Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee over HALF of the $12 trillion US mortgage market.  The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials, had been working with Wall St. to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.  As the housing market fell in ‘07, sub-prime mortgage portfolios suffered major losses.  The crisis was on,  though it was 15 years in the making.

2008:  McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the behemoths, Bush urged reform 17 times.  Still the media have repeated Democrats’ talking points about this being a “Republican” disaster.  A few Republicans are complicit but Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.  That’s why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion!!

If you doubt any of this, just click the links below and listen to your lawmakers own words.  They are condeming!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68D9XrqyrWo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgqfM5C8lY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4&feature=related

And you’ll find a bunch of others devoted to the same topic – just look.

Postscript:  ACORN is one of the principle beneficiaries of Fannie/ Freddie’s slush funds.  They are currently under indictment or investigation in many states.  Barack Obama served as their legal counsel, defending their activities for several years.

SAM BROWNBACK: DON’T PRESSURE PARENTS TO ABORT DISABLED BABIES

The following is an adapted excerpt from Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback’s new book, “From Power to Purpose: A Remarkable Journey of Faith and Compassion“

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently put out new guidelines recommending that all pregnant women be offered screening to determine whether their child may have Down syndrome. The college argues that it is more responsible to inform parents of their options beforehand so that they can decide whether or not to let the baby live.

This recommendation codifies a practice that has become all too common: direct or indirect pressure applied to parents by the medical establishment to end the lives of unborn children with disabilities, because these children are supposedly too much of a burden for their parents to bear.

About 80 percent of Down syndrome children are aborted today. But if these children are born, the Americans With Disabilities Act protects them and assures them of a certain level of accommodation by society. It’s one of the most highly touted pieces of legislation of the past 30 years. If you’ve got a disability, we want to help you.

The irony is that some people are working to make sure that babies with disabilities are never born. That’s such a shame.

Many Down syndrome children are the centerpieces of their families. They have amazing gifts and are full of affection. But apparently society thinks nothing about their death in the womb. I raised this question with my colleagues. I’ve also raised it during hearings on Supreme Court justices. But there’s still no support in favor of the life of a disabled child.

In legal circles they talk about the “effects test.” What’s the effect of the law? That’s how people will judge the validity of a law.

The effect of our abortion policy at this moment is that we are in the midst of a genocide of children with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy and other in utero genetic conditions that medical analysis can detect. If we think there’s a chance the child may have a disability, too often he or she is killed in the womb, and the system seems to push it.

The current system of analysis is a fallible process. Many times parents have been advised by their physician to abort their unborn child because the infant appeared to have a medical anomaly. I’ve had people tell me, “Our child tested positive for Down syndrome, but we went ahead with the pregnancy anyway, and it turned out he didn’t have Down’s at all.” I think most people would be shocked to know this happens.

This week I plan to introduce a bill to ensure that no parent would go through this process alone. The “Pre-natally and Postnatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act” provides that any family given a diagnosis of Down syndrome or any other condition would be connected with the necessary support structure. The bill ensures that each family would get sound and balanced information, connection to support services and information about the possibility of adoption so families would not be misled and children could be saved.

Wherever one stands on the abortion issue, the knowledge that 80 to 90 percent of those prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted is deeply troubling. I am hopeful that we can embrace a culture that is pro-life and whole-life, a culture worthy of our good and compassionate society.

This was posted at http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox.htm on 4/3/2006.

Mexican Standoff

I don’t know how everybody else feels about it, but to me I think Hispanic people in this country, legally or illegally, made a huge public relations mistake with their recent demonstrations.

I don’t blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to the United States of America, as it is a truly wonderful place. But when the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is illegal it is flat out wrong and I don’t care how many lala land left heads come out of the woodwork and start trying to give me sensitivity lessons.

I don’t need sensitivity lessons, in fact I don’t have anything against Mexicans, I just have something against criminals and anybody who comes into this country illegally is a criminal and if you don’t believe it try coming into America from a foreign country without a passport and see how far you get.

What disturbs me about the demonstrations is that it’s tantamount to saying, “I am going to come into your country even if it means breaking your laws and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

It’s an “in your face” action and speaking just for me I don’t like it one little bit and if there were a half dozen pairs of gonads in Washington bigger than English peas it wouldn’t be happening.

Where are you, you bunch of lilly livered, pantywaist, forked tongued, sorry excuses for defenders of The Constitution? Have you been drinking the water out of the Potomac again?

And even if you pass a bill on immigration it will probably be so pork laden and watered down that it won’t mean anything anyway. Besides, what good is another law going to do when you won’t enforce the ones on the books now?

And what ever happened to the polls guys? I thought you folks were the quintessential finger wetters. Well you sure ain’t paying any attention to the polls this time because somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done about this mess, and mess it is and getting bigger everyday.

This is no longer a problem, it is a dilemma and headed for being a tragedy. Do you honestly think that what happened in France with the Muslims can’t happen here when the businesses who hire these people finally run out of jobs and a few million disillusioned Hispanics take to the streets?

If you, Mr. President, Congressmen and Senators, knuckle under on this and refuse to do something meaningful it means that you care nothing for the kind of country your children and grandchildren will inherit.

But I guess that doesn’t matter as long as you get re-elected.

Shame on you.

Pray for our troops.

What do you think?

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels
April 3, 2006

On May 27, 1999 at the Rayburn House office building in Washington, D.C Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, addressed the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee at their invitation. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress is high poignant and painfully truthful.

While reportedly Mr. Scott’s message was not well received, I believe his message should be heard by all. Mr. Scott shared a very heartfelt and personal testimony to a seemingly hostile audience concerning what be views as the reason why his daughter’s life as taken a Columbine. Testimonies such as these are part of all ages and it is not uncommon for those in power to ignore them. However, hopefully, by reading and sharing this with others, each of us will not on listen to Mr. Scott’s message, but hear it as well.

The following is a portion of the transcript:

Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA, because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy. It was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers, themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You’ve stripped away our heritage,
You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question ‘Why?’
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politicians to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!

Do what the media did not. Let the nation hear this man’s speech.

…The third thing I want to talk about very briefly is the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons. And I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren’t for the scale of threat. Let me give you two examples.

When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby milk.

Now, if I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I’ve simply described the warrior culture which has been true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years. But, if I come to you and say that there is a couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with. And, what is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons. And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement. And, I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.

This is a very sober description of the Islamic terrorist threat we are faced with. We are NOW at war with a culture that wants, not to take over our land, but to KILL us.

In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal Bernard Lewis wrote about his concern that August 22 might be a day to watch. In particular he states that August 22nd is also the 27th of Rajab, 1427 in the Muslim calander. This date,

by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to “the farthest mosque,” usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

So, is this just another nutcase predicting the end of the world? Not exactly.

First, note that he’s not saying this will be the start of Armageddon with the appearance of Gog and Magog, but it is certainly a date to watch.

Second, this just happens to be the date that Iran’s leader, Mr. Ahmadinejad, stated that he would “give his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development.”

Third, this guy is not an idiot. Bernard Lewis is Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, specializing in Musolim history. He has also been an advisor to multiple presidents in the area of the Middle East.

Of course Javier Solana could step in and save the day, but I’ll leaving discussing him for another posting.